Hate for the new Trek and the Future of Trek

[fireproof78]

I think why some people react so strongly to Abrams films is that they're rewriting established characters. If the characters were not called Kirk, Spock etc and the films were just colourful action adventures of some new crew, I don't think people who don't like the style of the films would mind that much. Sure, they still wouldn't like the films but they wouldn't hate them.

I think you might be on to something there. Many of the criticisms I have seen against Abrams films is the fact that Kirk is presented as a "frat boy" and that doesn't sit well with the common view of Kirk and Spock. So, the idea of these being new characters, even if in the TOS era, different timeline, would probably have gone better. Again it speaks to the concept that Harve Bennett had of a Starfleet Academy movie, and how that might not have worked, due to perceptions of the crew already.

I think that part of it is that the Abrams' films challenges perception of Kirk, in particular, and if that's unsettling, then it's hard to get onboard with the rest of the film. I'll grant that the films have their weaknesses, but one common aspect of criticism and "hatred" (to use the term) is a lack of connection with the characters.

So, as a thought experiment, if Abrams' film's protagonist was Michael R. Ferrero, in the same film, would it work?

 

[Nightdiamond]

Choose ITD over FC? I probably would. And I always criticized NU Trek.

TNG was just too stuck in its blandness mold by that point. My favorite parts are from the Borg attack up until the time travel scene. Then I always lose interest.

At least ITD the characters did things like curse, act out of character etc.


I was never really into the NU Trek movies, but after a few rewatches it was beginning to grow on me.

BUT-- I noticed at first I liked Spock and thought it was dead on. Now whenever I see him, it seems like he's always bickering with someone or just somber about something.

The original Spock could always sneak a smile or sarcastic joke in without getting emotional.

 

[F. King Daniel]

Every change in Trek resulted in flak from the fandom, the recent movies are no different.

 

[shapeshifter]

Trufans = still have 1966 face.

 

[Kemaiku]

Trufans = still have 1966 face.

You mean knarled and abominable?

 

[STEPhon IT]

You might want to watch TMP.

The actually discrepancy really came from the episode Trials and Tribble-ations, which wasn't written by Berman, but instead Ronald Moore and Rene Echevarria. Prior to this episode the ridged Klingons had "alway looked that way," this episode is the one that made clear that the TOS Klingons did look substantially different prior to TMP.

To be honest, I prefer to explanation in John Ford's novel Final Reflection over the one given in the ENT arc.

But I really don't see your point. What happen in ENT wasn't a case of retcon because it didn't change canon, rather it added to existing previous established material.

What exactly did

rewrite?

+

I never said Rick Berman wrote it.

 

[The Wormhole]

People wouldn't call TATV an abomination if they didn't kill off Trip.

Actually, no, Trip's death aside, TATV is still an abomination. You got the obvious, it's basically a TNG episode filling in for Enterprise's series finale. It was a mistake to pretend Jonathan Frakes and Marina Sirtis were eleven years younger, not to mention they were trying to sandwich this into a TNG episode which doesn't have room for this little side-story to happen. They character- assassinated Shran. The episode just wasn't very good.

Ironically, the JJ movies were criticized by some fans for being too accessible to non-Trek fans and yet they did well financially. Why do you guys think it worked for the JJverse and not ENT?

The Abrams movies, for all their flaws (and they are many) at least have the benefit that the people producing them knew what they wanted and made those movies. I don't really get the impression anyone knew what they wanted Enterprise. Yes, there was network interference forcing things into the show like the Temporal Cold War and later the Xindi, but there didn't seem to be any vision for Enterprise anyway. The first two seasons consist largely of random throw-away episodes, many of which were just retreads of stories done in other Treks, in some cases multiple times already. The first season at least seems to be laying down some storylines with the Vulcan/Andorian conflict, and the TCW is featured a few times although whenever an interesting question is raised Mr. Daniels dismissed it as "you wouldn't understand." And the Suliban were spun off into another storyline involving that race of bumpy-heads who were wrongfully imprisoning their civilians.

But the second season ignores all that and focuses on really bad stand-alone episodes like Captain Archer's dog peeing on an alien tree considered sacred, Klingon oil raiders, Trip stuck with a snooty alien princess (so bad Braga actually tried to persuade UPN not to air it). Then the season ends with the new, studio-mandated threat the Xindi showing up, hastily wrapping up the TCW by revealing the mysterious Future Guy's hidden agenda the past two years was just to tell Archer about the Xindi.

 

[fireproof78]

It would should speak to the lack of vision for the TCW when the big bad introduced in the pilot is simply called "Future Guy." That really feels unoriginal and uninspired.

 

[F. King Daniel]

It would should speak to the lack of vision for the TCW when the big bad introduced in the pilot is simply called "Future Guy." That really feels unoriginal and uninspired.

Actually, he was "humanoid figure" until the name "Future Guy" took off online. I believe he was scripted as "Future Guy" in his final appearance.

 

[T'Arwen]

Actually, no, Trip's death aside, TATV is still an abomination. You got the obvious, it's basically a TNG episode filling in for Enterprise's series finale. It was a mistake to pretend Jonathan Frakes and Marina Sirtis were eleven years younger, not to mention they were trying to sandwich this into a TNG episode which doesn't have room for this little side-story to happen. They character- assassinated Shran. The episode just wasn't very good.

I have no doubt TATV still would have sucked without Trip's death. I just don't think the backlash would have been nearly as bad. There were a few good episodes in the first 2 seasons but you had to sift to find them. I don't think the network forced the Xindi on them. All they said was to make a big change to revive the ratings. But for all the quibbles about the Xindi breaking continuity, I liked season 3 because it finally felt like they had a vision for the show.

 

[The Wormhole]

Actually, he was "humanoid figure" until the name "Future Guy" took off online. I believe he was scripted as "Future Guy" in his final appearance.

I think he was still "Humanoid Figure" in the script. However, Paramount's official production report for The Expanse did refer to him as Future Guy and was the first official source to use the term.

I don't think the network forced the Xindi on them. All they said was to make a big change to revive the ratings.

Well, yes the network requested a change to how Enterprise was being done, and some sources suggest they were the ones that requested a season-long arc since such things were now becoming in vogue thanks to shows like 24. Since the Xindi were borne out of these requests, I consider the Xindi to be studio mandated.

 

[2takesfrakes]

As long as the entire STAR TREK franchise remains available to view and to own, then I really have a lot of trouble understanding and relating to this hatred for the STAR TREKs Abrams has done, so far. On the other hand, I would feel angst if TNG was given the STAR WARS: Special Edition treatment, with drop-ins, re-dos and added scenes to any of the shows, or movies, without keeping the originally aired shows available.

Likewise, I'm not convinced that a reboot of TNG can be done, successfully. And in any official poll taken by Paramount/CBS, I would always rush to vote against it. But as long as the original series/movies were available as they were originally shown, I wouldn't actually care - not as such. Not enough to be angry about it, because I already know that TNG: The Reboot will completely suck. You can't reproduce, much less beat, the magic of the original cast. So do your worst, that's what I say ... you're going to, anyway.

But personally, I happen to enjoy the TOS reboot movies, very much. I also find them to be superior in every way. I have great respect and fondness for the late Leonard Nimoy, but even he's in the reboots. So ... it's a win/win, for me.

 

[PhaserLightShow]

Yes, the hate may be misdirected, but would you rather have food with poison in it that would kill you (the Abhram movies) or no food but possible hope of survival finding non-poisonous food (none of the new movies and something more like the TV show(s) and 1979-2003 movies).

 

[PhaserLightShow]

And there is one other good reason for the hate. The new movies have an Enterprise design that more resembles the refit and A version than that in the TV series (which these movies are set before).

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I think why some people react so strongly to Abrams films is that they're rewriting established characters. If the characters were not called Kirk, Spock etc and the films were just colourful action adventures of some new crew, I don't think people who don't like the style of the films would mind that much. Sure, they still wouldn't like the films but they wouldn't hate them.

I actually think the personalities of Spock and Kirk are one of the things they got right.

What bothered me more was that Kirk was usually put in situations where he had weaker force and had to win by outthinking or outtalking the enemy, and in the new films all he does is kind of show up and shoot everyone.

Into Darkness also had some pretty major story problems that had nothing to do with comparisons to the original Treks.

More of the hate toward the new movies I think comes from the fact that their existence implicitly closes out the prime universe and eliminates hope for it to be further expanded.

 

[Longinus]

I actually think the personalities of Spock and Kirk are one of the things they got right.

I can't really agree with you there. Of the main trio Bones was the only one who actually felt like even remotely the same person to me.

More of the hate toward the new movies I think comes from the fact that their existence implicitly closes out the prime universe and eliminates hope for it to be further expanded.

That certainly is a big part of it. But that's the problem with re-writing the past.

 

[PhaserLightShow]

I can't really agree with you there. Of the main trio Bones was the only one who actually felt like even remotely the same person to me.


That certainly is a big part of it. But that's the problem with re-writing the past.

Yes, that is a problem with re-writing the past. That's why not to. That's the source of the hate. That the past was re-written. Although, the 2009 didn't re-write the past. Rather it made a new universe. Sort of like the mirror one. No destroyed universes. Just more universes. The prime one can still be expanded on. And I would rather have a TNG reboot than the 2009 TOS one.

 

[Greg Cox]

Yes, the hate may be misdirected, but would you rather have food with poison in it that would kill you (the Abhram movies) or no food but possible hope of survival finding non-poisonous food (none of the new movies and something more like the TV show(s) and 1979-2003 movies).

Or you can enjoy a tasty new recipe, even if not's exactly the same dish Mom used to make . . .

 

[Kor]

Yes, there is no "poison" in the new movies. They are just fine.

Kor

 

[Nerys Myk]

Yes, the hate may be misdirected, but would you rather have food with poison in it that would kill you (the Abhram movies) or no food but possible hope of survival finding non-poisonous food (none of the new movies and something more like the TV show(s) and 1979-2003 movies).

Are you seriously equating a movie with eating poisoned food? And how hard is it to spell "Abrams"?